1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 07:55 PM |
| Is there any method that behaves like FindPartsInRegion3 where, rather than detecting all parts within a specified Region3, the parts are detected within a specified radius? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
killjoy37
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2821 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:13 PM |
I'm not sure, but if there isn't, I have one idea. Take a "Ball" part and give it the correct radius and then CFrame it to the position you want, then have a Touched event in the ball that collects everything it touched :)
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:24 PM |
| That would be the least efficient and most time consuming method. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
killjoy37
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2821 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:30 PM |
| Geez. I was just trying to help. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:45 PM |
| I believe that would involve the making of said "radius" and then using a detect function, etc. But, as you said that is not exactly the definition of efficient. Sorry, that's all I got |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:46 PM |
It wouldn't work, either. It would collide with a few parts and then they would all explode, rendering the purpose of detecting what *used to be* there useless.
Is there any actual method that does the same thing as the cubic method, but instead of cubic: radial? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:48 PM |
| So far, the best method seems just to be to use the FindPartsInRegion3 method with the radius and then create my own radial detection method based on the parts returned from the area of the Region3. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:50 PM |
| I got no other ideas, sorry mate. This has interested me though, if you figure something out you should tell me |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:51 PM |
| Couldn't you just make a table that adds parts that is within a distance? o-o |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 08:55 PM |
| Test the magnitude of all the objects returned by FindPartsInRegion3. There isn't a function like it that returns parts within a sphere. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 09:13 PM |
| None of you understand what FindPartsInRegion3 does. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 09:34 PM |
| What do you mean by radial? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 May 2013 09:36 PM |
| It returns a table with parts that are within a cube right? o-o |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 09:46 PM |
| It returns a table of parts of which any portion are within the boundaries of the defined Region3. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrNicNac
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 26567 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 10:18 PM |
You're being way to uptight and just under minding whatever help you receive. To the point where such obviousness has deluded you.
Obviously there is no functioning method or algorithm in Roblox API. But Woodstauk's idea is most efficient because it uses Region3 to obtain parts in a defined cubical area, which are obtained efficiently, then you can get a spherical distance by checking magnitudes of vectors ( which is always spherical ). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 10:31 PM |
| Yes, but the problem is the distance between what. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 01 May 2013 10:33 PM |
| Woodstauk's idea is ineffective, my idea is incomplete. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 May 2013 12:07 AM |
| a while back i had this same problem (btw im Isaiahmk989) and i was trying to make a part rendering system (which i was successful). Now there's many ways to do this but what will happen is the more accurate you want the detection to be, the more lag you get out of it. If you are detecting each part's position, no problem just use magnitude, but when a part is more that a 1x1x1, you can be out of the distance of the position, but the part will still collide with the sphere. my friend Arundel mentioned recording all the corners (verticies) of a part and if one of those is within distance, then its true, but when you have a big part, lets say a 20x20x20, you can still be within in distance without it counting thats it's in the sphere if you're in between the corners. So, the bigger the shape gets the more points you have to calculate on the shape. That's still not good though considering the time you want to render. If you take 100 parts, and you are rendering 500 points every second, it will still be laggy. With that being said, the method i did works, but its not the best. heres the link to it http://www.roblox.com/Part-Render-Script-item?id=98196892 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 May 2013 12:10 AM |
| one more thing i should mention, its best to only render the detailed part of areas instead of every part, that way you cant run into the main problem of a big part not being calculated correctly. heres a example http://www.roblox.com/N-A-place?id=90425012 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 02 May 2013 02:44 PM |
| It doesn't matter how big the part is. Trial and error is not the solution. Doing more calculations to see if one of them might be right is stupid. There is an actual algorithm to find the closest distance on a surface to a certain point. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 May 2013 05:06 AM |
| well, what is your solution? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 May 2013 06:30 AM |
"Trial and Error is not the solution."
Apparently you dont know what scripting it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
toshir0z
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 425 |
|
|
| 03 May 2013 09:14 AM |
| Using the table it returns check all the parts if they are withen a certain radius |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 03 May 2013 02:48 PM |
No, Neo. You do not understand how things work, so don't attempt to make an argument. You are wrong. Slender, if I had a solution, then I wouldn't be asking for the input of you lot.
Neo, you must be absolutely horrible at solving problems. Trial and error is not the solution. It may work sometimes, but it will take absolutely forever and will be the absolute least effective and least efficient possible method you could ever use. If you think you're going to try to argue that trial and error is the right thing to do, then you need to shut up and learn how efficiency works. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 03 May 2013 02:49 PM |
| Toshir0z, stop posting when you're less than half awake. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|